A UK wide study of current prostate planning practice

Dummy run for planning of isotoxic dose-escalated radiation therapy for glioblastoma used in the PRIDE trial (NOA-28; ARO-2024-01; AG-NRO-06)

Background

The PRIDE trial (NOA-28; ARO-2024-01; AG-NRO-06; NCT05871021) is designed to determine whether a dose escalation with 75.0 Gy in 30 fractions can enhance the median overall survival (OS) in patients with methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promotor unmethylated glioblastoma compared to historical median OS rates, while being isotoxic to historical cohorts through the addition of concurrent bevacizumab (BEV). To ensure protocol-compliant irradiation planning with all study centers, a dummy run was planned and the plan quality was evaluated.

Methods

A suitable patient case was selected and the computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) contours were made available. Participants at the various intended study sites performed radiation planning according to the PRIDE clinical trial protocol. The treatment plans and dose grids were uploaded as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files to a cloud-based platform. Plan quality and protocol adherence were analyzed using a standardized checklist, scorecards and indices such as Dice Score (DSC) and Hausdorff Distance (HD).

Results

Median DSC was 0.89, 0.90, 0.88 for PTV60, PTV60ex (planning target volume receiving 60.0 Gy for the standard and the experimental plan, respectively) and PTV75 (PTV receiving 75.0 Gy in the experimental plan), respectively. Median HD values were 17.0 mm, 13.9 mm and 12.1 mm, respectively. These differences were also evident in the volumes: The PTV60 had a volume range of 219.1-391.3 cc (median: 261.9 cc) for the standard plans, while the PTV75 volumes for the experimental plans ranged from 71.5-142.7 cc (median: 92.3 cc). The structures with the largest deviations in Dice score were the pituitary gland (median 0.37, range 0.00-0.69) and the right lacrimal gland (median 0.59, range 0.42-0.78).

Conclusions

The deviations revealed the necessity of systematic trainings with appropriate feedback before the start of clinical trials in radiation oncology and the constant monitoring of protocol compliance throw-out the study.

Trial registration

NCT05871021.

Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning

Head and neck cancers present challenges in radiation treatment planning due to the large number of critical structures near the target(s) and highly heterogeneous tissue composition. While Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations currently offer the most accurate approximation of dose deposition in tissue, the switch to MC presents challenges in preserving the parameters of care. The differences in dose‐to‐tissue were widely discussed in the literature, but mostly in the context of recalculating the existing plans rather than reoptimizing with the MC dose engine. Also, the target dose homogeneity received less attention. We adhere to strict dose homogeneity objectives in clinical practice. In this study, we started with 21 clinical volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans previously developed in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Those plans were recalculated “as is” with RayStation (RS) MC algorithm and then reoptimized in RS with both collapsed cone (CC) and MC algorithms. MC statistical uncertainty (0.3%) was selected carefully to balance the dose computation time (1–2 min) with the planning target volume (PTV) dose‐volume histogram (DVH) shape approaching that of a “noise‐free” calculation. When the hot spot in head and neck MC‐based treatment planning is defined as dose to 0.03 cc, it is exceedingly difficult to limit it to 105% of the prescription dose, as we were used to with the CC algorithm. The average hot spot after optimization and calculation with RS MC was statistically significantly higher compared to Pinnacle and RS CC algorithms by 1.2 and 1.0 %, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) observed in this study suggests that in most cases a hot spot of ≤107% is achievable. Compared to the 95% CI for the previous clinical plans recalculated with RS MC “as is” (upper limit 108%), in real terms this result is at least as good or better than the historic plans.